In the piece linked below, the author says that while boycotts are generally not very effective, and generally not very ethically sound, the recent move (under the #BoycottNRA banner/hashtag) is different. The author argues that the movement is likely to be effective, at least to some extent, and that some of the factors that make other boycotts ethically troubling are not factors here.
LINK: Unlike most boycotts, the #BoycottNRA campaign might really work
(by Chris MacDonald for Canadian Business)
t’s an unusual boycott, in many ways. It’s not aimed at the NRA’s core business—for a membership-based organization like the NRA, that would mean reducing membership. Yes, the boycott is officially called (and hashtagged) #BoycottNRA, but those involved aren’t boycotting the NRA itself, burning their membership cards and so on. They’re boycotting companies that do business with the NRA, and in most cases this means companies that provide benefits to NRA members in the form of things like discounts on purchases or cash-back NRA-branded credit cards. And a stunning string of companies—from Avis to Delta Airlines to MetLife to Symantec—have already caved to the pressure.
Boycotts are mostly stupid, and often immoral. They seldom have much impact, and are often more likely to hurt low-level employees than CEOs or shareholders….
What do you think?